While the first part of your statement is true, the second is not. That is, indeed, I used ad homined attacks (not a very good way of arguing, I admit), but not because Ms. Albright is a woman, but because I cannot stand her arrogance.
This has nothing to do with her gender. What tipped me off was her appearance on PBS when our fearless leader decided to show the Iraqis who's the boss. Ms Albright said that the missile attacks were justified because otherwise (I quote from memory) "Saddam would conceal evidence of his weapons program." BOMBING AS A WAY OF PRESERVING EVIDENCE - this is the most idiotic excuse I heard since I could remember. To this day I wonder if she is so stupid that she cannot cook a more convincing story, or so arrogant that she does not give a shit.
So when we hear from the same person, who also said that thousands of Iraqi people is the price worth to pay for the American policies, that BOMBING IS A WAY TO UPHOLD HUMAN RIGHTS - sorry, but this is more that I can take.
Again, I take your point that ad hominem slurs are not the way to argue, and I aplogize for posting such slurs. But I object to your hinting that my criticism was due to the fact that she was a woman in a "non-feminine" role. Please, give me some credit, I went through a grad school, I know how to keep proper public appearances [sarcasm].
regards,
Wojtek